Michigan

Prisoners ask for early release after Supreme Court ruling on gun crimes

Updated on June 6, 2016 at 6:06 AMPosted on June 6, 2016 at 6:00 AM

New police task force seizes more than 18K, drugs and guns from Flint streets in two-week period

The Flint Police Department's new Crime Area Target Team seized 14 guns, a variety of drugs and more than $18,000 in a two-week period, said Chief Tim Johnson during a news conference Tuesday morning, April 26.

FLINT, MI - More than a dozen Flint-area federal inmates convicted of gun crimes could be released from prison early following two recent Supreme Court decisions that changed laws calling for increased sentences for career criminals.

At least 16 people have filed motions in Flint U.S. District Court since the beginning of the year asking for their federal prison sentences to be reduced following the Supreme Court cases that impacted the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The law allowed federal prosecutors to seek lengthy prison sentences for felons who commit gun crimes if they had previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug crimes.

In Flint, the act helped give teeth to a zero-tolerance policy enacted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for felons who possess firearms. In 2011, the agency announced it would begin charging felon in possession of firearm cases in the federal system, rather than the state system, due to the stiffer penalties.

The announcement came as the city was ravaged by gun violence and hovered at the top of annual lists of the nation's most-violent cities.

Since the announcement, court records show roughly 300 cases have been initiated by federal prosecutors against felons who allegedly illegally possessed firearms in Flint and the surrounding areas.

The act requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for defendants who commit crimes with a firearm after three or more previous convictions for drug trafficking offenses or violent felonies. Federal sentencing guidelines also allowed for sentencing increases for felons if they had prior serious drug or violent felonies, but did not yet reach the three crime threshold.

But the recent court decisions, the 2015 Johnson v. United States case and subsequent 2016 Welch v. United State ruling, now limit what courts can consider violent felonies when deciding if the Armed Career Criminal Act and its heftier sentences can be applied.

"The impact of the Johnson opinion is that some prisoners will be resentenced and ultimately released early," U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade's office said in a statement to Mlive-The Flint Journal. "The exact number is not yet known, as the Supreme Court and various Courts of Appeals wade through a myriad of legal issues associated with applying Johnson to already-incarcerated defendants."

It's also not yet known how many more inmates will seek relief from their sentences due to the changes.

Riots, guns and drugs

Fire alarms rang out April 30, 2003, at the Wolverine Secure Treatment Center.

Wolverine, located in Buena Vista, serves as a secure residential treatment program for males ages 12-21.

Louis John Coker trotted out of his cell with his fists balled up. Court records show he told the corrections officers he was going to "beat some ass," and he encouraged other residents at the facility to join him.

Other residents agreed and a riot ensued. Court records show facility staff were assaulted and property was destroyed. Ultimately, Coker was convicted of attempting to incite a riot and given five years of probation for his role in the incident.

Nearly five years later, Coker was out of custody when a man, who turned out to be a Flint police officer, called him to say he had $20 and was looking for drugs, court records show.

The pair met and the officer purchased .09 grams of heroin from Coker.

The officer left the area and told his back-up that the deal had been made. His team moved in and tried to arrest Coker, but he fled.

Officers pursued and ultimately tackled Coker. During their search, they discovered a .22-caliber handgun in his waistband.

Federal prosecutors filed charges, and Coker was sentenced to 10 years in prison for distributing heroin and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Federal sentencing guidelines called for less than three years in prison, but the judge determined he was a career criminal and more than tripled his sentence.

Coker, 30, is serving his sentence at the Lewisburg federal high-security prison in Lewisburg, Penn. He is scheduled to be released in November 2019.

Now, public defenders are asking a judge to reduce his sentence and free him from prison. They argue the judge erred in claiming Coker was a career criminal in light of the new Supreme Court decisions.

"Based on these decision, Mr. Coker is being unconstitutionally held, in violation of the Constitution," public defender Joan Morgan wrote in an April 26 motion seeking Coker's release. Morgan could not be reached for comment.

What's a violent crime?

The Supreme Court's Johnson decision limited what could be considered a violent crime in order to obtain increased sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Under the act, a violent crime was defined as a crime punishable by more than a year in prison and contained the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against a person. It also identified specific crimes that included burglary of a dwelling, arson, extortion or the use of explosives that fit the definition.

However, the Johnson case challenged a third portion of the law, known as the residual clause, that also defined a violent crime as an act that involved conduct that presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to others.

The residual clause acted as catch-all, allowing judges to make their own inferences on if the prior convictions should be considered a violent crime.

For Coker, prosecutors argued that his riot conviction should be considered a violent crime, and they asked U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox to rule him a career offender.

"Encouraging inmates to assault correctional officers during a fire alarm is conduct which carries a significant risk of injury," the U.S. Attorney's Office argued prior to Coker's sentencing. "Defendant's admitted offense conduct was purposeful, violent and aggressive and should be considered a crime of violence."

Cox, relying on the residual clause, ruled the conviction was a crime of violence and made Coker susceptible to increased sentencing.

But, the Supreme Court, in particular the late Justice Antonin Scalia, took issue with this type of judicial decision making.

"This line of cases, of sentencing, was something Scalia was really ardent about," said Western Michigan University Cooley Law School professor Tonya Krause-Phelan.

Krause-Phelan said Scalia regularly spoke in opposition to factors that could increase a defendant's sentence that were never determined beyond a reasonable doubt by jurors.

Ultimately, it was Scalia who wrote the Johnson decision that eliminated the residual clause as vague.

"It just leaves too much for speculation on the part of the judge," Krause-Phelan said.

Future for Flint

While the Johnson decision helped shift the definition of violent crime, this year's Welch decision allowed this new definition to be applied retroactively to cases that have already been sentenced.

This opened the door for those already convicted in Flint to challenge their sentences.

But, Krause-Phelan said it's still too early to know what exactly the impact of these decision will be locally.

While resentencing motions pour in from inmates, there is no guarantee all of them will see a change in their sentences.

"In some cases, our office will oppose motions to reduce sentences and in some cases our office will stipulate to resentencing of defendants," McQuade's office said. "This is true of federal prosecutors' offices around the country. Our decision to either stipulate or oppose the motions to reduce sentence will depend on the nature of a particular defendant's prior conviction or convictions."

Flint-area inmates have argued a multitude of convictions should no longer be considered violent crimes, including armed robbery, negligent homicide, felonious assault and a plethora of attempted infractions.

So far, only one Flint-area motion for a reduction has been ruled on.

Andrew Tramble was sentenced in 2004 to more than 17 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act for prior convictions of jail escape and attempted larceny in a building.

However, U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker on May 3 agreed to reduce his sentence to 10 years and ordered his immediate release from prison after determining he no longer met the criteria created by the Johnson decision.

Despite the changes, McQuade's office said it will still continue to press ahead with its zero-tolerance policy, and will work with those offenders who are released to try and prevent them from re-offending.

"Many may be concerned that the early release of some prisoners as a result of the Johnson decision will threaten public safety," McQuade's office said. "Our office is committed to assisting offenders who reenter society seeking to avoid criminal activity and take advantage of various reentry programs available to them. Our office is equally committed to prosecuting offenders who return to criminal activity and don't take advantage of reentry programs.

"In large measure, the choice is up to each returning citizen."

Gary Ridley is a staff writer with Mlive-The Flint Journal. He can be reached at 810-280-9516. You can also follow him on Twitter @GaryRidley or on Facebook.